D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Lanefan]

If you're confusing Rule 0 with people can make up houserules, this is true of any social engagement people have.

No confusion - they, along with system kitbashing, are largely the same thing: the DM is changing how the game works. The only difference is that Rule 0 is more on a here-and-now-in-the-moment basis while houseruling is a longer-term deal and kitbashing is bigger yet.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like I've described some really straightforward stuff where my players are EXPLICITLY in the driver's seat, literally telling me what's in the world. And then you repeatedly insist that I must be utterly absolutely dictating EVERYTHING to the players, and never ever giving them even a single moment of control.

I didn't say that. I said that the approach you're describing seems to me to be very traditional, with the GM establishing content in advance and framing scenes based on extrapolation from that content as triggered by players' descriptions of where their PCs go and what their PCs look at.

This is the only way I can make sense of your repeated remarks about your authority over content being in-principle unlimited, of your description of the use of "breadcrumbs", of your apparent shock at the notion that one might just frame a scene by asking the players, "OK, so what next?" or saying "OK, is everyone happy if we cut to this now?"

It's also the only way I can make sense of the lack of discussion of how action resolution produces constraints on your content authority and is a source of content authority for players.

As best I can tell from what you've posted, your player contributions consist in suggesting setting elements which then get incorporated by you into your prep. I don't see you talking about how player preferences shape processes of action resolution or inform your scene framing. Whereas I do see you talking about designing a dungeon (ie undertaking prep) in response to a player idea, which then didn't get taken up because the player didn't go on to engage with that particular bit of content that you had prepared.

When I hear you say "just frame a good scene" @pemerton , I get very confused. I don't know what that means. You've described it as...basically just saying a scene happens. Absolute fiat declaration, no holds barred. I don't like that idea. That idea sounds like literally just telling the players, "You're doing this now, capisce?" That's why I see it as railroading; you are doing whatever you like, and the players can put up or shut up.

Let me go back to your post about the dungeon. I don't know all the details of your game, so I'll present a version of that by reference to my own actual play, and the angel feather.

As I posted upthread, the player of the sorcerer PC in my first BW game had established, as one of his PC's Beliefs, that I will find the magic items I need to free my brother Joachim from possession by a Balrog (I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it was very much to that effect).

So now I have the following two options in front of me:

I can start the campaign in a tavern, and write up (in my prep notes) various NPCs who might know the way to find various magic items, so that if the player declares the right actions for his PC, he might trigger me to play those NPCs in such a way that the relevant backstory is communicated, so that eventually he is in a position to declare actions for his PC which might result in his PC acquiring an angel feather.

Or I can do what I actually did, which is to start the campaign in a bazaar, where a peddler is selling curiosities of various sorts, and claims to have an angel feather for sale.

You are asserting that the second is a railroad and the former is not. I see the situation as exactly the opposite: my framing puts the player immediately into a situation which speaks to the goal he has authored for his PC, and we all start to find out, straight away, what the PC is prepared to do and what consequences will ensue in his quest to free Joachim from possession (and we learn that he will haggle, not kill or steal, for the feather; and that the feather is cursed).

Whereas the first approach seems to me a recipe for tedious "hunting for the plot", where the focus of play - perhaps for hours, depending on the details of the prep and the degree to which the players can make sense of the GM's "breadcrumbs" - becomes all this pre-authored fiction which has no intrinsic significance for anyone and is just a vehicle for providing cues that foster new action declarations that eventually result in the actual scene that is of interest and might generate a plot-relevant moment, namely, the opportunity to acquire an angel feather.

When I pushed on that, you followed up with, more or less, "ask them what they want to do, then have that happen." This confuses me further, because I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I talk to my players frequently about what they want. Between sessions, I ask explicitly. During a session, I prefer not to ask explicitly, in part because I feel that interrupts the flow of play too much, and in part because Dungeon World explicitly tells me never to refer to the player, only the character.

This is all entirely consistent with what I have posted above and upthread: that your approach to play is very traditional prep, and that the role of authority over the fiction is Edwards's "easiest version".

As far as DW is concerned, I can only express my reading of the rules as informed by Apocalypse World and my broader knowledge of Vincent Baker's approach to RPG design. But if a player is trying to Discern Realities, before a check is made I would be asking "So-and-so, what are you curious about here? What are you hoping you might discover?" That is addressing the character, not the player - but is an application of the crucial technique of asking questions and building on the answers. And it is part of adopting a different "version" of the authorship processes: player narrational authority leading to shared content authority leading to either further player narrational authority if the check succeeds, or GM situational authority if the check fails, and the possibility of a plot moment in either case depending exactly on what it is that is revealed.

As for the "metagame" thing, I mean a WHOLE different ballgame from "shape the fiction as you wish it to go," which I guess you can call "metagame" if you like, but I personally wouldn't. What I'm talking about is: "okay, we know we rolled badly on that, so whatever he said, he was lying, that means we should act as though whatever he said is false even though there's literally no justification for us to do so, other than that we, as players, know that the dice were bad instead of good." To the best of my knowledge, this is an explicitly Bad Thing in Dungeon World terms, because it means thinking mechanics first rather than fiction first.

I'm not 100% sure what you've got in mind here - but I think you're talking about whether a 6-down result on Discern Realities might be the cue for the GM to decide, and reveal, that a NPC is a traitor or deceiver. To which I say, absolutely! As to how there is justification for it - that's what making your move but never speaking its name and thinking offscreen are all about: so now that it's revealed that Boromir actually lusts for the ring rather than wanting to help Frodo destroy it, having him follow Frodo up to the top of Amon Sul becomes a moment of separating them. And what does that tell us about the bigger context of Frodo's quest and it's relationship to the glory of Minas Tirith, already flagged by the (up until that moment) largely colour narration of the statutes of the Argonath?

This is exactly what RPGing looks like when you depart from the "easiest version" of the allocation of authority: narration and situation become prioritised, content is generated as the imperatives of narration and situation demand it, and plot moments emerge out of the interplay of narration, situation and action resolution.

 

[el-remmen]

/Considers skimming 64 pages of this thread to see if anyone has shared this meme, but then says F it and shares it anyway:

 

[pemerton]

you have asserted that it is not true that the DM can do whatever they like. I had thought this was well-understood to be a literally universal maxim for any game that has a GM-like role, known as Rule Zero.

There is no "rule zero" in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. Nor in Agon 2nd ed. Nor in Burning Wheel.

Here is some relevant rules text from Burning Wheel (I'm quoting from the Gold edition, pp 24, 30 ; the text in Revised is no different):

Let’s start with the core of the Burning Wheel system. We call it “Intent and Task.” . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

Given that tasks, in BW, can include recalling things (Wises and similar checks) or noticing things (Perception and similar checks) or hoping to meet someone (CIrcles checks); and that intentions can include I want it to be true that Evard's Tower is near here or I'm hoping I can see a ewer or bucket or similar vessel around here, to catch the blood or I'm hoping to meet my brother now that we've returned to my homeland; it follows that the sacrosanct character of a successful role can absolutely bind the GM by constraining content and situational authority. That is, we can have player narrational authority (I'm hoping to meet my brother) leads, via a successful check, to player content authority (OK, your brother is here) to shared situational authority (the scene now has to be one of meeting with the brother, due to the successful check, but it is the GM's job to frame that scene having regard to the obligation to honour the success - in the game where I was playing, the GM had my brother come down the road driving a cart and telling me that he was on his way to get more wine for "the master" - ie the embellishment tied into other elements of known backstory, like the degradation of my brother and my homeland, while also promising further possibilities - in PbtA terms this is classic "thinking offscreen").

Rule zero has no work to do in this game.

Prince Valiant is written more than 15 years earlier and isn't quite as forthright. Here's some text (pp 5, 8, 18, 41):

The big difference that sets Prince Valiant, The Storytelling Game apart from most games is the cooperation, simplicity of interchange, and striving for equality that occurs between participants. . . .

Players do not have unlimited freedom. The Storyteller may give the player advice first, and he may prevent a player’s intended action from occurring if it is unrealistic or statistically unlikely. Essentially he says “you never did that.” However, the Storyteller should try not to veto a player’s announced action just because he didn’t expect it, or just because it might change the way the adventure was going. . . .

All conflicts, tests of skill, and other challenges in Prince Valiant, the Storytelling Game are resolved by flipping, or “throwing,” a number of ordinary coins. . . .

Ask the other players their opinions in sticky situations. The cooperative effort will be fortified. . . .

The rules given here are guidelines, and may be overruled by the Storyteller at any time for any reason. Most importantly, the Storyteller has the right to change the way things happen in the story. . . . This arbitrary power is central to the art of oral storytelling. Anyone who stands up in front of others has a right to adjust his statements to the tone, emotion and needs of the crowd. Some examples of this intervention include the appearance of a boat at an opportune moment of escape after players have bungled every other opportunity, or the apparently arbitrary change of mind exhibited when a cruel sultan chooses to imprison the characters rather than kill them outright as he had sworn. By far the most tempting use of the fiat is to save the life of a character.​

As that last paragraph indicates, Prince Valiant is infused with more sentimentality and less "grit" (for lack of a better word) than Burning Wheel. This is also evident in its rules about damage - the GM decides what happens to a character who suffers damage, how severe it is, and how long it takes to recover (the only mechanical implication of being dropped to zero in a pool is that for the moment, the character is out of the action). But there is no scope to disregard successful checks; nor any need to.

4e D&D underwent a change in the statement of the role of the GM. From the PHB (p 8):

The Dungeon Master has several functions in the game.

* Adventure Builder: The DM creates adventures (or selects premade adventures) for you and the other players to play through.

* Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome.

* Monster Controller: The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains the player characters battle against, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks.

* Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.
​

In the Essentials Rules Compendium (p 9), that last point is changed to read:

Referee: The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don’t cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

I regard that as a retrograde step, part of the broader mission of Essentials to take 4e back towards earlier versions of the game.

A similar change is found between the 1977 edition of Traveller and The Traveller Book from the early 80s: the latter, consistent with the emerging zeitgeist, introduces text about the GM fudging dice rolls and covertly manipulating the fiction so as to ensure the story unfolds as intended.

My own view is that a RPG that needs the GM to "rule zero" things in order to work is just a poorly-designed RPG. And if the outcomes of action resolution are not going to be treated as binding, then what is the point of resolving actions - is it just to give the GM suggestions as to what they might decide happens next?

 

[Hussar]

I've always found that the expansion of Rule 0 from the early days to now to be problematic. Rule 0, back in the day, basically said, "When there is a point in the game where either the rules are conflicting or absent, the DM is empowered to make a ruling and the table is expected to abide by that ruling. " Which, back in the day, made perfect sense since the rules systems of early RPG's were lacking resolution mechanics for so many things. The infamous "Can I swim" question in early D&D, for example. "How far can I jump?" is another one. The rules are either conflicting or absent, so, the DM steps in to fill in the gaps.

But, now, rulesets are largely comprehensive. Many RPG's have basic, comprehesive rules for determining success. Roll X and you succeed - Savage Worlds for example has this - any result of 6 (I think it's six, five or six? It's been a while) is a success. How you get that six doesn't matter - whether it's a d4 with pluses or a d12 - so long as you score a six, you succeed. There's no real need for any Rule 0 engagement.

The trick is, people have expanded on the notion of Rule 0 to change the DM from referee to rules creator. Referee's don't make the rules. Or, well, they shouldn't. Which means that people point to Rule 0 as justification for anything the DM does. You decide to take away a warlock's powers because they didn't play out their pact to your satisfaction? Rule 0! Never minding that there's absolutely nothing in the 5e ruleset that even suggests that a DM can or even should do this. Of course a DM can do this. It's Rule 0!

As you can see, I'm not a huge fan of Rule 0 as it's typically used by some DM's.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No confusion - they, along with system kitbashing, are largely the same thing: the DM is changing how the game works. The only difference is that Rule 0 is more on a here-and-now-in-the-moment basis while houseruling is a longer-term deal and kitbashing is bigger yet.

No, there's a difference between a table deciding on table rules and Rule 0, which is, bluntly put, the GM says so.

 

[pemerton]

Rule 0, back in the day, basically said, "When there is a point in the game where either the rules are conflicting or absent, the DM is empowered to make a ruling and the table is expected to abide by that ruling. " Which, back in the day, made perfect sense since the rules systems of early RPG's were lacking resolution mechanics for so many things. The infamous "Can I swim" question in early D&D, for example. "How far can I jump?" is another one. The rules are either conflicting or absent, so, the DM steps in to fill in the gaps.

But, now, rulesets are largely comprehensive. Many RPG's have basic, comprehesive rules for determining success.

Your swimming example made me think of how this would work in AW or DW.

There's no "swim" ability in those games. So if the player has his/her PC dive into water, the GM just has to make a move as standard. Now unless the player has handed the GM a "golden opportunity" - eg the water in question is Dagon's Vortex of Certain Death - it might be a bit rude to make a terribly hard move (and OK, you drown doesn't really seem like being a fan of the character). So the GM probably goes with a soft move - You feel the current start to tug you away from your companions or You see a giant eel snaking its way towards you - and then plays off that. In DW this sort of thing might well move into Defy Danger. In AW it might, or might not move into Acting Under Fire (which is a bit more specific than DW's Defy Danger).

My conclusion is that "comprehensive rules" can include mechanical frameworks, or principles that govern narration of "what happens next", or both. Either way, I agree that rule zero doesn't have work to do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so people seem to get confused about what the GM can do in DW. Suppose the players are going to search a room for a clue. Well, the GM could, in theory, simply give them the clue, or even a fake clue. However, this would still have to comply with the principles and game agenda that the GM is playing by, here are some that might be germane:

No, the GM cannot do these things, or they are breaking with the intent and rules of the game. The GM can frame a scene where a goal of the players is at stake, and, perhaps, present as part of the framing a clue, but the veracity of that clue cannot be set by the GM, and the clue, as a goal of the players, must be in peril of some kind that the players then have to react to. This is basic DW scene framing.

If the GM just introduces a red herring, they've broken with the principles of play very strongly -- they've authored secret fiction, authored an unwanted outcome to a player goal without a failure allowing it, and basically made the game run like a normal D&D game and not DW.

Agenda - Fill the character's lives with adventure, and Play to find out what happens. I would say the first one just means make the result interesting, whatever the clue is, it MUST lead to something interesting/exciting. Play to find out what happens actually militates against the GM just placing a clue. That is, usually the issue should be in question, will they or won't they? However, the players decided to search, the GM can make a soft move and do it.

Principles: Ask questions and use the answers. Be a fan of the characters. Think Dangerous, Think offscreen too. These seem relevant. So you should ask questions. Maybe literally ask the players "Do you think the Duke did it?" As a 'fan of the characters' the GM is again making their life interesting and challenging so they can kick butt, right? And Think dangerous certainly means the clue should bring risk! Think offscreen too is probably kind of implicit here, but it means that the GM should be planning ahead, laying plot hooks, clues, etc. (but again following the other 'rules').

So, if the players decide to search the room for a clue about the Duke... Does the GM have freedom to do anything he wants here? No, it has to be exciting, dangerous, give the PCs a chance to shine, and it cannot lead in some foreordained direction that the GM has already plotted out (but it can involve interaction with elements he has on tap to use).

Which means not establishing a red herring or a false clue (or even a true clue) as part of scene framing. You've contradicted yourself.

DW specifically has a move, Discern Realities, which is tailor-made to this situation. The player says "I search the room" and the GM says "Roll DR", and then the player does, and maybe gets to ask 1 or 3 questions, which the GM MUST ANSWER and which presumably he must answer faithfully, though I think there is going to be some leeway there in terms of the factual nature of the answers (IE an answer must be 'useful' on a 10+, but it might turn out to be inaccurate information). Going back to the clue, there would probably be a useful clue here, or at least informative on a 7-9. 6-, maybe its a red herring that leads to some more problems, or maybe some guards show up, here the GM has a lot of leeway.

The only way the information could turn out to be inaccurate would be due to a future failure. At the time it's revealed, it's true information until a failure changes it. It also can't be a red herring on any success (or even a failure) because this establishes secret fiction that the GM knows but isn't in the game. The only way a clue can turn into a red herring is through further play, and, even there, it would be have to be a pretty hard move.

DW GMs are very tightly constrained, and cannot establish things as you're suggesting except as a soft or hard move on a failure or complication. They are not free to just do it. They also aren't free to just have the PCs find a clue -- this isn't filling lives with adventure. If it's important to the PCs, it's a focal point of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, the GM cannot do these things, or they are breaking with the intent and rules of the game. The GM can frame a scene where a goal of the players is at stake, and, perhaps, present as part of the framing a clue, but the veracity of that clue cannot be set by the GM, and the clue, as a goal of the players, must be in peril of some kind that the players then have to react to. This is basic DW scene framing.

I think we have some difference of interpretation here. I mean, first of all, I do state that the results must comport with the agenda and principles of the GM. I think we are taking it as a given that the scene exists for SOME reason that is related to something the PCs are attempting to do. Its possible the GM designed the existence of a clue as part of a Front, but most likely it is related to something the players said, or the PCs did. The GM could certainly present the veracity of the clue as being in doubt, either as a simple observation at the time (probably more likely PCs questioning it) or later as a move of some sort. However, that would only be cool in my book if they had not already 'won' it by some successful roll.

If the GM just introduces a red herring, they've broken with the principles of play very strongly -- they've authored secret fiction, authored an unwanted outcome to a player goal without a failure allowing it, and basically made the game run like a normal D&D game and not DW.

Again, I believe this is potentially, depending on certain details, a perfectly feasible example of a 'soft move', though I don't seem to have explicated that well.

Which means not establishing a red herring or a false clue (or even a true clue) as part of scene framing. You've contradicted yourself.

The only way the information could turn out to be inaccurate would be due to a future failure. At the time it's revealed, it's true information until a failure changes it. It also can't be a red herring on any success (or even a failure) because this establishes secret fiction that the GM knows but isn't in the game. The only way a clue can turn into a red herring is through further play, and, even there, it would be have to be a pretty hard move.

Hard, soft, you can debate endlessly exactly what is what in that dimension. The GM doesn't have 'secret fiction', but the GM DOES HAVE "things aren't established until they are established in fiction." So, no, the GM wouldn't literally write down at the time of clue discovery "This clue is false!" (probably, I guess its possible if there were immediate consequences, then it is a move). It isn't OBLIGATED to be accurate though either. When it first appears it is simply the appearance of a thing. In the same way you could introduce an illusory terrain feature.

DW GMs are very tightly constrained, and cannot establish things as you're suggesting except as a soft or hard move on a failure or complication. They are not free to just do it. They also aren't free to just have the PCs find a clue -- this isn't filling lives with adventure. If it's important to the PCs, it's a focal point of the game.

I think we'll just have to differ a little bit on our interpretations of things. I don't think you are 'wrong', but I think the game allows for a bit more range of things than you're suggesting. Again, I said "might turn out to be inaccurate information", that isn't "this is an outright lie on the face of it." I think there's a subtle point here WRT DR. The rules say "The answers you get are always honest ones." but think about that. You DR the room, and ask "What is useful here?" and the answer is "A letter from the Trade Guild to the Duke." That doesn't mean the letter's contents are truth! It means they are useful (they will provide a +1 forward when acted upon).

 

[Maxperson]

No. It’s more like, “shall we go to the beach or the park?” Reply… “let’s go to the beach”….

“Oh wow, the Red Arrows are doing an airshow. Wow that’s amazing.”

We would have seen the display whether we were at the beach or park because it was independent of our decision.

Thats the equivalent of encounters not tied to place.

But the airport is closer to the beach and there aren't any trees to block part of the view, so it's a good thing we didn't choose the park or we wouldn't have been able to see it nearly as well.